Back to Article

  • DanNeely - Sunday, January 22, 2012 - link

    Is one gigabit really enough to carry a video signal? USB2 adapters only have half that and they struggle with anything non-static. Uncompressed 1080p needs ~3gigabits of bandwidth. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    If you're trying to send raw, uncompressed 1080p60 content, yes, you will need 3Gbps of usable bandwidth. You can probably do lossless compression and get down to <1Gbps, but since the source material is almost always heavily compressed, it's better to just send that and do the decoding on the other end, but I don't think that's what anyone is doing.

    Anyway, I would love to be able to actually transfer at Gbps speeds over wireless within the same room. I'll also believe it when I see it, as I suspect the cost for all the hardware isn't going to be particularly cheap for some time yet. 802.11ad router + 802.11ad adapters in laptops? My guess is we'll see something like this become the standard in about five years. Heck, we're still getting single stream 802.11n in 95% of laptops, and no one even makes 4x4:4 MIMO cards yet (AFAIK), even though higher stream counts have been part of the spec pretty much since it became final.
  • juhatus - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    Is this tech really any different than say WirelessHD with hdmi 1.4? I know its ethernet versus hdmi but hdmi 1.4 does include ethernet..

    I have been using the cheapo Vizio XWH200 for almost a year to transfer 1080p to my projector without any problems. So Im thinking this Wilocity-tech and 802.11ad/ is coming late!
  • ganeshts - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    Wireless HDMI in the 60 GHz channel and this one are competing in the same spectrum, but WiGig is media agnostic, while wireless HDMI is just for video (+ethernet in case of HDMI 1.4a). Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    The tech has the capability to transmit upto 7 Gbps. The 1 Gbps seen in the pic is for the data channel alone. I believe the HDMI video transfer was uncompressed video because the internal board of the DockinZone didn't have any video decoder. We will get to know more in the future tradeshows as to the exact limitations (my meeting was more oriented towards the data transfer / networking) Reply
  • name99 - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    "This enables the Ultrabook manufacturer to just replace the Wi-Fi module with the WiGig / Wi-Fi combo module without any loss of original functionality (essentially creating a tri-band wireless chipset)."

    Really? No paying attention to the 60GHz antenna and antenna coupling is required?
    I think AzureWave are being a little flippant here.

    And speaking of people being cavalier with the truth, where was the laptop placed relative to the docking station to get those 1Gbps numbers? Sitting on top, or fifteen meters away?
    I understand that WiGig is limited range; we all understand that's just the breaks; and their particular solution here is elegant.
    What I am interested in, however, is realistic numbers as to how fast the range falls off given the kind of docking scenario they are suggesting. What sort of performance would I realistically get with, for example, my computer in a bed room and the dock in the room next door, but with a door between them open?
  • ganeshts - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    I didn't capture photos of the mini-PCI-E WiGig / WiFi module, but the antenna is really not very big (comparable to that of a Wi-Fi antenna only). The truth is that there were ultrabooks on demo with that module embedded.

    The 1 Gbps number was from an ultrabook with the NAS sitting across the suite (maybe around 6 - 8 metres). As the range increases, the throughput obviously goes down, but, in the in-room situations, I think it is pretty decent. In the scenario that you outline, the open door will help in getting beams reflected and the tech would still work (just with lesser throughput)
  • name99 - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    6-8 meters. Nice!

    The wavelength for 60GHz is 5mm. I wouldn't expect such an antenna to be obviously visible. My point was that a "chip-level" drop-in module seems unlikely to give optimal results --- there also has to be consideration paid to the RF coupling of such a module to an antenna system. I'd be curious as to exactly what is going on here.
    In the case of 2.4/5GHz, the usual solution is something like a PIFA --- a 3D pseudo-cavity formed from specially shaped planes of metal, which has resonant frequencies (for a combined EM+electron current mode) at 2.4 and 5GHz. It seems unlikely that this is just going to also have a resonant frequency at 60GHz, and the ratio between 2.4 and 60 seems high enough that an additional antenna would be the best solution.
  • extide - Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - link

    They aren't talking chip level swap out, but the whole mini-pcie module/card being swapped. So you go from a 802.11 a/b/g/n wifi mini pci-e card to one that has 802.11 a/b/g/n + 802.11ad on a single card. Reply
  • ATC9001 - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    Well at 60 GHZ the wavelength is .5 centimeter. You get the best attenuation and signal reception at 1/2 the wavelength, so I'm sure they can build a .25 centimeter antenna on those mini cards. Reply
  • XZerg - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    I could have sworn the new standard was supposed to be called 802.11ac not 'ad'... is this another standard? Reply
  • lbeyak - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    Yes, this one (802.11ad) is an in-room technology only, due to it's low range. 802.11ac is the regular WiFi technology to replace 802.11a/b/g/n Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    Note also that this is 60GHz spectrum where 802.11ac is 5GHz. Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Monday, January 23, 2012 - link

    I'd rather have a thicker laptop with a proper set of ports on it. However, I can see this WiGig thing being useful for wirelessly-connected screens, perhaps. You don't move your screens around as much as your laptop so could get them in a position with permanently good signal. Reply
  • Zap - Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - link

    [tin foil hat] Do people worry anymore over all these wireless signals (including wireless power) causing cancer? [/tin foil hat]

    Instead of making faster wireless, I would settle for existing wireless to be more reliable and have greater range.
  • Impulses - Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - link

    Sounds like they're positioning it as a quasi-Thunderbolt wireless equivalent for tablets and ultrabooks... It certainly sounds appealing. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now